Justice Minister Sean Fraser says it would be “unimaginable” for Ottawa to sit out a Supreme Court fight over the notwithstanding clause. He’s right that the case matters. He’s wrong about what Ottawa should be arguing. The federal government shouldn’t be in court trying to narrow a tool that is baked into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 33 is not a loophole. It’s the democratic safety valve that helped make the Charter possible in 1982, and it comes with built-in accountability.Section 33 lets Parliament or a provincial legislature openly declare that a law will operate “notwithstanding” certain Charter rights, and it expires after five years unless renewed. That sunset is not a suggestion; it’s written in the Constitution itself, with a hard clock and the expectation of public debate at every renewal. .GOLDBERG: Ford’s solution to everything is deflect and blame someone else.Ottawa’s own explainer says the same — a declaration “is only valid for 5 years” and must be re-enacted to continue. Those features force political accountability.The Supreme Court has long accepted the clause’s place in our system. In Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) (1988), the Court struck down parts of Bill 101, but it also recognized that legislatures can shield laws with a proper Section 33 declaration. The ruling is a reminder that courts interpret the Charter. They do not erase provisions that elected governments choose to use within the rules (Supreme Court of Canada decision).Today’s fight flows from Quebec’s secularism law, Bill 21, which the National Assembly has insulated using Section 33 and renewed for another five years. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge this year. .Ottawa has now filed arguments urging the Court to read “constitutional limits” into the clause — limits that would prevent it from “wiping out” rights. Five premiers — Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia — have asked the Prime Minister to pull that submission, calling it a betrayal of the Charter bargain and a threat to national unity.Here’s the practical check on abuse, the voters. Because a declaration expires in five years, governments must defend their choice at the polls or on the floor of a legislature. We’ve seen that accountability bite. Ontario’s 2022 back-to-work law for education workers was shielded with section 33 — and then repealed under public pressure within days. .EDITORIAL: It’s time to hit the reset button on Canada’s broken immigration system.In Saskatchewan, the Parents’ Bill of Rights invoked Section 33 in 2023; the government owned that decision in full public view with over 40 hours of debate in the Saskatchewan legislature over it.Supporters of Ottawa’s court push say rights can erode “bit by bit.” That concern is sincere. But the Charter was drafted to balance rights with democratic choice. Parliament’s own research arm notes that Section 33 preserves parliamentary sovereignty and lets elected bodies respond to court interpretations they believe are misguided — subject to public judgment at renewal time. .If that balance needs changing, the honest route is a constitutional amendment, not asking judges to read new limits into plain constitutional text.And there’s a federalism problem. When Ottawa invites the Court to narrow Section 33, it is asking judges to referee a political tool that belongs as much to Edmonton and Regina as it does to Parliament. The premiers’ warning about national unity shouldn’t be brushed aside. Western Canadians in particular understand that institutions work best when Ottawa respects the bargains that hold the country together..ALBERS: Government does not create value.This isn’t a defence of any specific law shielded by Section 33. It’s a defence of the Charter we actually have. The clause is transparent, temporary, and electorally accountable. Voters can punish overreach. Courts keep their core role. That’s the balance Canadians signed up for.Ottawa should withdraw its bid to narrow Section 33 and let the Supreme Court decide Bill 21 on the law in front of it. If the federal government wants a different Charter, it should make that case to Canadians — not ask the Supreme Court to do the editing.
